Demonetization of Rs 500 and Rs 1000: Could Modi have done it differently?

On November 8, just when a large number of Americans were queuing up to cast their votes in, what would turn out to be a historic presidential election, here in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise and unscheduled appearance on national television at 8 pm, in what would turn out to be a startling economic policy pronouncement that made as much as 86 per cent of India's currency invalid.

His aim was to wipe out the massive amounts of counterfeit banknotes in the denomination of Rs 500 and Rs 1000; and also to render invalid huge stacks of these currency that have been set apart to fuel unlawful practices like street protests, terror activities and corruption.  

Modi, who has survived cataclysmic social upheavals in Gujarat as its chief minister, knows well not only the power of symbolism but also that for anything to have a lasting impact it has to be swift and strong. The November 8 'surgical strike' on people who are wrecking India's economy and financial well-being, fitted well into the Modi style of governance.

The severity of Modi's decision can be gauged from the fact that it took at least one full day for the new economic order to sink in. Almost immediately, the stark reality of what is in every Indian's wallets struck each of them -- invalid Rs 1000 and Rs 500 notes and very few valid Rs 100 notes. Indians simply ran out of cash. And, to make it worse, banks and ATMs too ran out of cash. So, Modi's assurance that the invalid notes can be exchanged in banks for new ones amounted to not much.

Today is the ninth day; and instead of things getting better, seemingly it's getting worse. For example, today, the revenue secretary announced that the old notes can be swapped for new ones in banks only up to a maximum of Rs 2,000 per person. It was Rs 4,500. Since many ATMs aren't working, there is no point in depositing in accounts, since the money can't be withdrawn. 

While Prime Minister Modi deserves credit for taking this bold step, the lengthening queues outside banks and ATMs are fueling discontent among people and making both purchases and selling difficult. In short, it's hurting the economy, may be in the short term. But how it will play out in the coming days is not known.

Why Modi is correct

* Corruption is endemic in India. When the going gets tough, reach out for the banknotes, seems to a national mantra. Though it is commonly associated with government-related services, people bribe their way to convenience very often. While in some instances, cash can speed up matters, on other occasions it can mean serious compromise in quality. And, when government services are corrupted, nation's financial health weakens.

* Black money is in plenty. This is a large amount of unaccounted wealth. The beneficiaries are individuals, and groups of people who run organizations. The losers are the country (the government) and institutions, both private and public. Basically Indian financial culture is such that it promotes illegal wealth. For example, people don't mind forgoing the bill in return for a discount. They fake bills and financial agreements to escape tax. Many resort to cash transactions to avoid leaving a trail which would result in payment of tax. Poor people are only too willing to accept wads of currency from political parties who seek their votes. It's a huge ugly mess.

* Fake banknotes in the denominations of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 were so many that banks themselves were dispensing them and honest people too had them in their wallets.

* India has to reduce its dependence on hard cash. There has to be more of cheque or electronic transactions that will leave a trail. Unless people are pushed into it like this, the lethargic, complacent average Indian will not change.

Could this have been done differently?

* The Prime Minister had to make it a surprise announcement, since any inkling of this would have resulted in people turning black money into white, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise.

* It was common knowledge that - considering the amount of fake notes in circulation - demonetization was the only option. The most intuitive of the businessmen might have seen this coming, sooner than later.

* While the announcement of demonetization would have had to be a surprise, at the backend the government could have set the stage to minimise the hardship for people. 

* The RBI (Reserve Bank of India, the banking regulator) could have increased the supply of Rs 100 notes and instructed the banks not to put Rs 500 and Rs 1000 back into circulation. Instead new Rs 500 notes could have been put into circulation. It would have been a gradual process, and no one would have found anything amiss there. 

* May be a month into this quiet backend operation, the Prime Minister could have made the announcement of demonetization of the "old" bank notes. This way, while the end objective of curbing black money (it can't wiped out totally) would be achieved, the subtlety of the operation would have ensured that people had minimum inconvenience. 

What is at stake?

* This has both political and economic implications. Modi's advantage is that the opposition is fragmented, rudderless and leaderless. Elections in UP and Punjab could end up as a referendum on Modi's governance.

* Undoubtedly, business across the board has been hit. There isn't any cash around. Many people say this is just a temporary phenomenon. But how things would be dramatically better after a few months is not known.

* Nothing will totally wipe away black money from the economy. It can be reduced to a considerable extent. The government will have to follow this up with raids on tax evaders, bringing them book or even imprison them. Otherwise, this will just go down in history as a political stunt which amounted to nothing but inconvenience to the people.

India avenges terror attacks with surgical strike. Now, what next?

Finally, the long-awaited avenging of the Uri attack has taken place. Remember the the buzz on the social media a few days ago? See my previous post.

The day's excitement, which began with the news that the Prime Minister had cancelled a meeting to discuss the status of the Most Favoured Nation status of Pakistan, has lasted right up to the end of the day.

Instead of the meeting on the MFN status, the PM chaired a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security Affairs. At that time it was also announced that there were will be a rare joint press conference by the MoD and MEA. There was immediate speculation on what is going to be announced.

The announcement of the “surgical operation” came at that press briefing by the DGMO Lt Gen Ranbir Singh. (Surgical strike is a military operation aimed at hitting their targets precisely with little or no collateral damage to surrounding areas.) He said that the Indian troops crossed the Line of Control and destroyed several launch pads. Many terrorists died, and there were no casualties on the Indian side. When journalists wanted to ask questions, it was announced that the officials won't take any questions, and the press meet ended.

Officials seem to have briefed journalists off the record; and through the afternoon a number of details of the operation filtered out. At least 38 terrorists were killed. Seven launch pads were destroyed. The troops went up to 6 km inside the Pak-occupied Kashmir. And the operation began around 12.30 am and lated till around 4.30 am. In the night, more details of the operation are emerging.

Pak reaction

Interestingly, Pakistan in its reaction, said the Indian claim was a lie. “There was no surgical strike. It was just a cross-border shelling in which two Pakistani soldiers died,” is the gist of that reaction.

In a way that shows their “guilt”. Because if they didn't have anything to hide, they would have reacted saying, “India, without any provocation crossed the LoC, smashed infrastructure resulting in many deaths.” Nothing of that sort.

In these days of rapid information dissemination, it's difficult to hide anything. And wonder if the people of Pakistan will believe their government's reaction that nothing actually happened.

More surgical strikes?

I don't think there will be any immediate major retaliation by the Pakistan defence forces. Because, Pakistan isn't even saying that India conducted surgical strikes. So, for what should they retaliate?

But Pakistan, terming last night incident as only s cross-border shelling, says they will not brook any further aggression. That is significant. Because, that is like a warning to India. “Once it's okay, We will look the other way. But if you are going to make this a habit, don't think we will keep quiet,” That seems to be what they are meaning.

It will be naive on India's part to assume that Pakistan will not hit back. That is why Indian defence forces are at maximum alert; ready to take on even any surprise retaliation.

The government sources are saying that this will not be a one-off surgical strike. There will be a sustained bid to end the cross-border infiltration and the terror that is flowing into Jammu and Kashmir.

That means there is a change from in our policy from being a passive witness to an active combatant. It is only natural that there is such a change, as the moralistic high ground based on peace hasn't exactly brought about any tranquility at all. It is only being seen as a weakness, and capitalised on.

But in the long run, military strikes can't actually solve any political or social issue. It can neutralize a combative situation, and create a climate for a civilian agreement. That's what Prime Minister Narendra Modi should finally aim at – end this decades-old problem once and for all, using all means, military and civilian.

Did India avenge Uri attack?

Three was a lot of buzz on social media and messaging groups like WhatsApp regarding a military offensive Indian defence forces are supposed to have made across the Line of Control as a response to the attack on the Indian Army base in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir on 18th.

While initially the talk was only in the social media, later The Quint, a popular online magazine, ran the story after checking with sources. Since many doubted the veracity of the story, The Quint rechecked with their sources, and now they stand by the story.

The story, if true, is quite a newsy one. It says that 20 suspected terrorists in camps in PoK were killed after "two units of the elite 2 Paras comprising 18-20 soldiers flew across the LoC in the Uri sector in military helicopters and carried out an operation." The total casualties, including those injured, is reported to be 200. This operation is said to have taken place in the intervening night of on Sep 20-21.

The whole thing apparently started with a tweet by one Sumann Sharrma [@SumannSharrma], and also a series of them from Anshul Saxena [@AskAnshul]. Both are stressing that it's not a rumour that it is confirmed development. There was also a tweet that PM Modi was closely monitoring the operation.

Other news media like India Today and Indian Express followed up on the tweets. They ran stories saying the Army or the Government aren't confirming the account.

But then why no word on it from Pak side?

Of course, no one in the Indian military or political establishment will come on record authenticating a covert operation. But surely Pakistan is not going to keep quiet. The relatives and friends of people who died or injured aren't going to keep quiet. Nawaz Sharif would have made it a big issue in his UNGA speech yesterday. And India too wouldn't have risked such a thing when UN is in session.

It difficult to say whether such incidents are true or just conspiracy theories. There have been some incidents along side that seem to be giving credence to this story. One is that Pakistan International Airlines suspended its flights to Gilgit and Northern Areas. That was to apparently to keep the airspace free for a retaliation just in case Indian forces launch an attack. Two, Nawaz Sharif spoke to the Pakistan Army chief before his address to the UN. And three, India's defence minister Manohar Parrikar said sometimes there is nothing wrong with "knee-jerk reactions".

My doubts are:

- When there is such a public clamour for Indian retaliation, why should India be quiet about this operation, and still take the flak from people for not doing anything?

- If such covert operations can done like this, why couldn't it be done long back; or even as and when it is deemed necessary secretly smash all the terror camps along the LoC? We won't be having this big problem in Jammu and Kashmir in the first place.

Let us wait till something concrete emerges on this.

An odd beginning to the New Year

The squabbling between Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leaders over the presumed link between yesterday’s strike by some bureaucrats and the odd-even rule that kicked in today, is a depressing testimony to the way we do politics. It makes one feel that any well-intentioned initiative in this country is under the constant threat of disintegrating into chaos and ultimate failure.

The odd-even rule - that restricts plying of odd and even numbered vehicles to odd and even days - is by no means an innovative idea. It has been tried out in many cities of the world. The only point of interest here should have been how well Delhi’ites adapted to the new regulations; if there were any violators..

On the contrary, all the talk yesterday and today morning was Kejriwal’s allegations that the strike by IAS officers was instigated the BJP to ensure that the odd-even plan failed; and BJP hitting back saying the odd-even plan was bound to fail and Kejriwal was just preparing a ruse to save himself.

The way we have dealt with an important policy decision that has huge ramifications on environment and thereby on our health, in no way portents a promising start to the new year. If AAP and BJP are going to squabble on every important decision, the country’s capital doesn’t have much hope.

40 years on, India is different now

Here is Emergency, 30 years ago

A few other points that come to my mind. The India then and now are vastly different - politically, economically and sociologically.

There was just one Congress, under Indira Gandhi, that dominated the political spectrum. Today, we have a plethora of parties, many of them regional ones. At one end, she was seen as a strong-willed leader who could get things done, and who kept India's national interest uppermost. At the other end, for Indira haters, she was an arrogant dictator.

At that time, there was hardly any private sector, that catered to our essential daily subsistence needs. We just had government-owned behemoths, the efficiency levels of which left a lot to be desired; and concepts like accountability weren't much heard of.

Forget internet, mobile phone or social media; there was not even television then. There was just one All India Radio, and a couple of newspapers and magazines for us to know what was happening in our country. There was little knowledge of what "other cultures and traditions" actually meant; the only source was a few foreign radio stations like BBC, Radio Australia, Voice of America etc, that were available on Short Wave bands.

The world itself has moved on, quite a distance, in the past 40 years. Most significantly, there is no USSR now. There is only one USA. With the fall of the Soviet empire, the Berlin Wall too came down. And along with it all the barriers that separated different ideologies and cultures too. (However, we are yet to figure out some way on how to co-exist in a world full of diversity.)

There is still this talk about whether Emergency, as it happened 40 years ago, will ever happen again. It is extremely difficult, for many reasons. In retrospect, we can see that there was a context then.

There was already an External Emergency in existence, due to the 1971 war with Pakistan. There was a bogey about foreign forces trying to break up India. So, Mrs Gandhi saw everything through that prism. No one had the guts to stand up against her, or put across a different view point. When opposition political parties and activists finally stood up, she could only see it as a deterioration in the state of the nation.

Another reason is the Constitution has been amended to make proclamation of Internal Emergency a difficult process that needs the approval of the Cabinet and both Houses of Parliament.

All said and done, there was lot of suffering during those days, which are now referred to as the Darkest Days of Democracy. Still there is little tolerance for contrarian views; some people have had to pay with their lives for standing up to strong power centres, so much so that there is often fear among many people to speak out. But what we then saw was an institutionalized, government-sanctioned suppression of any contrarian views.

It was a turning point in India's history, no doubt; a period many would like to forget rather than remember.

AAP landslide victory: random thoughts

Surely even Arvind Kejriwal and AAP supporters never thought they would win all but 3 seats in the Assembly. That's almost 96% of seats. Is that a record for any election in India? Remember, AAP didn't win a single seat in Delhi in the Lok Sabha elections.

This is what the voters said: "Dear Aravind, you asked us to pardon you. We have done that. You said we didn't give you a clear mandate, last time. We have given you that now. Let's see how you deliver on your promises."

Kiran Bedi and BJP leadership in no small way contributed to the party's rout. She was crticising BJP and Modi till a few months ago. She walks in to that same party, heaps platitudes on the party and Modi; and gets anointed as the party's chief ministerial candidate. Huge goof-up by party leadership.

This is not the first time voters have spoken decisively. In 1977, Indira Gandhi was swept out of power, and totally untested Janata Party came to power. When people saw that the alternative simply didn't work out, in the first available chance, in 1980, they voted her back to government.

Another example is the defeat of the urban-centric trio of Atal Behari Vajpayee at the Centre, Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh and S M Krishna in Karnataka in 2004. Anyone following the media -- that was bristling with the India Shining campaign -- would have felt that these three would easily come back. But it was not so.

Even now, the voters have said that they know clearly the difference between Central government and State government. Many, especially the BJP thought that having won the Lok Sabha election, it should be a cakewalk in Delhi. Complacency has done them in.

Jayalalithaa gets 4 years jail term; Rs 100 crore fine

1830: Jayalalithaa barred from contesting elections for 10 years.

1734: Jayalalithaa disqualified as MLA

1730:  Jayalalithaa will have to be imprisoned immediately, it's said. 

1720: Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa sentenced to four years in jail and Rs 100 crore fine

1700: There were lot of fears of violence in Bangalore. But the city is absolutely peaceful.

1600: The arguments for sentencing still on.

1426: Jayalalithaa convicted of all charges.

1400: Conflicting views on what's happening inside court room. Lack of official information fuelling rumours.

1333: Hope there won't be any violence in Bangalore after the verdict is pronounced.

1330: The timeline of this case

1313: Before we know the verdict, first AIADMK celebrated, and now DMK is celebrating.

1303: Rumours of Jayalalithaa being found guilty.


1250: AIADMK workers are running berserk near Hosur on the border as well.


1241: Even before the verdict is pronounced, there is lathicharge outside the court premises. Now imagine, what will the situation be after the pronouncement of the verdict?


1230: Police will have tough time controlling DMK and AIADMK workers, irrespective of whichever way the verdict goes.

1215: Really strange that AIADMK workers are bursting crackers and distributing sweets. But the verdict isn't out yet.


1200: Now the wait gets longer as the court has put off the verdict to 1pm

1130: Even if she is convicted, I doubt anything much will change in Tamil Nadu. She will have a trusted confidant to step in

1110: The verdict was supposed to be pronounced at 11 am.

1030: The entire news media have descended outside the special court premises.

What this case is all about:

It's that Jayalalithaa acquired wealth worth Rs. 66.65 crore while she was the chief minister from 1991 to 1996, that she was abetted by her aide Ms. Sasikala along with tow of her relatives, V.N. Sudhakaran (Jayalalithaa’s ex-foster son) and Ilavarasi. The case was filed by the DMK in 1996. 

Successful Mars mission and unsuccessful earthly missions

The nation erupted in joy yesterday as India's Mars Orbitor Mission decelerated to the right extent to descend to the Martian orbit.

It would have been a failure if the Orbitor didn't slow down enough. Then, it would have shot past the planet.

It would have been a failure if it had slowed down too much. Then, it would have crashed into the planet.

How much the speed should be, and when it should begin to slow down and many other related actions of the Orbitor were calculated and uploaded by our scientists about a week in advance -- on September 14 and 15.

What we saw yesterday was a vindication of the ability of our scientisits to plan so many complicated calculations and manoeuvres in advance so that they got executed precisely, not anywhere closeby, but 65 crore kilometers away.

It's not a surprise therefore that the unparalleled success of the mission in our first attempt, also attracted a few cynical reactions. Some said this achievement has any real meaning, only if we are able to plan and executive our actions on Earth, in our neighbourhood. Let us first succeed on Earth, they let us look at Space. When we aren't able to have good roads, water supply, electricity, food and shelter for all, clean surroundings, good healthcare, good administration etc etc., what do we gain by spending crores of rupees sending an object to Mars. ... So went their arguments.

Of course, it is true that we are way behind in having basic amenities for our citizens. We are indeed one of the poor countries in the world; only a small segment of our country is rich.

There are a few reasons why our missions in space are a great success, but our missions on Earth aren't.

• The task and the road map are clear.
• There's an unhindered way ahead when it comes to space missions.
• There are no bureaucratic redtape or politicking.
• There is a strict timeline and scientists put in best to achieve the objective. Many of them haven't taken an off day for last 15 months. Such has been there commitment to achieve their goal.
• There is a sense of national pride when it comes to space projects.

But, consider our earthly missions. Be it any project concerning social welfare, healthcare, or electricity or transportation or industry or agriculture. The path to realise the objectives when it comes to these projects aren't often clear. There is no timeline, no accountablity, no national pride, no dedication or sacrifice; and to complicate matters there are some lumpen elements who will sneak in, and spoil the entire show only for thier own benefit.

If our space missions have been a success, there are reasons for it.

If many of our earthly missions have been a failure, there are reasons for it.

Our scientists have quietly sent out a message -- if a project has to be a spectacular success there is a price to be paid. 

They paid that. They got the result.

Applaud them. Don't take credit away from them for our failures.

Kerala Diary 3 - Modiji, please end the bandh culture

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in Japan on a day when his party has shut down Kerala. In Japan, people work hard on any normal day, and work harder when there is a reason to protest.

Today's snap state-wide bandh is in response to the killing of an RSS worker in politically sensitive Kathirur near Thalassery in Kannur district, allegedly by CPM workers, yesterday. The region has a long history of tit-for-tat violence between the RSS and the CPM.

Incidentally, BJP president Amit Shah's arrived in Kerala yesterday to reinvigorate the party in the state where his party hasn't been able to do well.

No one likes bandhs. Political parties too know that. No one knows what bandhs achieve. At best, parties only have a misplaced sense of power. Vehicles keep off roads, and shops down shutters because of fear of being attacked for disregarding the call. Bandhs are clearly a lose-lose proposition.

Though forceful shutdown of a city or nation is disruptive, I do agree that parties and people are fully entitled to organize peaceful protests on any issue of public importance. Supreme Court has upheld this right. But what matters is how and when it is organized.

Bandhs are most disruptive and most annoying when organized without any advance information. Most bandhs in Kerala are snap decisions. Yesterday's is a good example. Originally, the bandh was planned only in Kannur district. By late evening, it became a state-wide shutdown. How it happened, no one clearly knows.

I am furious. I am stuck at home today. We had planned visits to tourist spots, and homes of relatives and friends. The plans have been ruined.

Modi keeps talking about making India a powerful nation and bettering the standard of living of every Indian. I am told he works very hard, and expects others to work very hard too. I am sure, he will abhor the culture of bandhs, not just in Kerala (where it is a fairly frequent phenomenon), but anywhere else in India.

Every party is equally guilty of organizing bandhs and even indulging in associated violence. Can Modi make a difference? Fresh from Japan, can he prevail upon the party to unilaterally declare a moratorium on  bandhs? Can he get the party to say, "Bandhs don't serve any purpose. It only ruins the economy. BJP is declaring a moratorium on bandhs and disruptive strikes. We will not call for a bandh, even if other parties do."

Modiji, can you walk the talk?

When All India Radio delayed its news bulletins

1984, June 3

In the evening, All India Radio kept announcing that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi would address the nation at 8 pm. Those days no one had even heard of internet or mobile phones. Television itself was just making a beginning. Black and white ones, that too in a few homes.

Breaking news happened in either one of the three main news bulletins on AIR or in the morning newspapers. There were no expert panelists on televisions to speculate on why the PM was unusually addressing the nation. Discussions were restricted to neighbourhood friends.

Mrs Gandhi was in her fifth year as Prime Minister after spending over two years out of power. Any major policy announcements? Was she going to call early elections? But why should she? Or has there been some major crisis?

At the stroke of 8 pm, instead of the PM's address to the nation, there was an announcement that due to some technical problems the Prime Minister's speech is delayed. AIR began playing instrumental music.

8.15 pm. No speech.

8.30 pm. No speech.

8.45 pm. No speech. No Hindi news.

9 pm. No speech. No English news.

Only repeated announcements that the address is delayed, and that the news bulletins would be broadcast after the Prime Minister's address to the nation.

Suspense mounted. I don't know if that was the first time ever AIR had missed its major 15-minute Hindi and English news bulletins at 8.45 and 9. Most unusual. No clue to what was happening.

If I remember right, around 9.30 pm, Mrs Gandhi finally came on air. My father and I intently listened to know what was the speech all about. It was an anti-climax of sorts.

She said (using words to mean that) the nation was in the throes of a crisis, riven by fissiparous forces (an expression I learned those days) who were bent of splitting and destroying the nation. She called on the people to stay together to preserve the "unity and integrity" (two words she always used) of the country. She said disruptive forces (another common phrase those days) would be crushed with an iron hand. She sought everyone's support to uphold the "unity and integrity" of the nation ....

Escalating violence in Punjab

She went on and on for about 15 or 20 minutes. There was no major announcement. The big internal crisis she had been battling for about two years was the large-scale violence in Punjab. A wedge had been driven between Sikhs and Hindus. There were killings almost every day. The person everyone spoke about was a young revolutionary named Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrenwale.

He was leading a fight for a return to original Sikhism. The history is complex, and the roots are partly religious, partly political. Though Punjab was created as a state for the Sikhs, politically Congress dominated over the parties that spearheaded the movement. Akalis lost elections. There have been constant complaints that Sikhs were being discriminated and Punjabi language was being sidelined in favour of Hindi. A few Akali Dal leaders created the Anandpur Sahib resolution in 1973 that called for a number of steps to restore the pride and place of the Sikhs.

The resolution was never talked about much, until early 1980s, when Bhindrawale, leader of the Damdami Taksal group took it up. He said fighting for all the things mentioned in the resolution will solve a number of problems of Punjab -- one of the critical ones was the demand for larger share of irrigation water. The demand for return of Chandigarh to Punjab too cropped up.

Mrs Gandhi saw red. She felt the Anandpur Sahib resolution and the agitation (which subsequently took a violent mode) were divisive and disruptive in nature threatening the "unity and integrity" of India.

What was initially started as a peaceful agitation, soon became quite radical and then militant in nature. Intra-Sikh rivalries played out on the streets. There were many instances of violent clashes between police and agitators. In 1982, Bhindranwale and his armed supporters moved into premises of the Golden Temple.

Violence was becoming the order of the day. In 1980, Baba Gurbachan Singh of Sant Nirankari sect shot dead. In 1981, editor of Hind Samachar group Jagat Narain was killed. The same year a plane was hijacked to Pakistan. In 1982, Punjab CM Darbara Singh escaped assassination attempt.
In 1983, deputy inspector general of Punjab Police A. S. Atwal was shot dead while he was leaving the Golden Temple. In 1983, there were a few instances of Hindus being killed, and there was a feeling that things were spiralling out of control.

Though, things were looking alarming, Mrs Gandhi didn't announce anything related to Punjab in her address to the nation. What she said wasn't anything different from what she used to tell at every public function or when she spoke to reporters.

But I went to bed with an eerie feeling that something was happening or was about to happen. The hint was the delay in the PM's address and the consequent late broadcast of night news bulletins. It was very unusual.

1984, June 4

The next day morning we got to know in the 8.10 am English news that Indian Army had launched a full-scale military attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar in a bid to flush out the armed people. Heavy artillery and powerful guns were used. Tanks and armoured personnel carriers took part.

The operation was planned and coordinated by Army chief Gen A S Vaidya and vice-chief Lt Gen K Sunderji.

There were not many details in the 10 minute or 15 minute news bulletins on AIR. The next day's papers too did not carry much information. Not surprisingly, as we came to know later that the entire operation was planned and coordinated in total secrecy. There was complete censorship on news from June 3 with large parts of the fortified city under curfew.

The only alternative to the AIR was the BBC and the Voice of America. There was in-depth coverage in BBC's South Asia Survey at 7.15 am, Radio News Reel at 7.45 am and at 8.15 pm (BBC discontinued both the programmes later).

It was a full-scale battle in Amritsar as Army faced fierce resistance. The operation was over only on June 10. Bhindrenwale died on June 6. Casualty figures were disputed. Unofficial figures are close to 1,000 armymen and over 10,000 civilians died in various parts of the city during the 10-day operation that began on June 1.

We also got to know that Indira Gandhi's speech was delayed as it underwent revision after revision as her advisors differed on what the speech should contain.

Controversial decision

All the conversation everywhere was about Operation Blue Star. There were two sides to the dabate, and what was right depended on which side you were on.

Mrs Gandhi's argument was that it was right to send armed personnel into the temple since the temple itself had been used for storing arms. She said it was wrong for Sikh groups themselves to take arms into the temple in the first place.

But the counterargument was that it was okay for Sikhs to take arms to their temple. But it wasn't right for others to do so. The temple belonged to the Sikhs and not to the Army. Many Sikhs I spoke to felt the forceful entry of the Army with arms into the temple was definitely not right. They felt government let the situation escalate, and they could have explored many other options to get the militants out.

In fact, it's said Indira Gandhi had been earlier advised against the move by some top Army personnel. She was told to use alternative methods to get them out of the temple. It was also said Mrs Gandhi with political considerations in mind had allowed the situation to fester for long time in the beginning.

But at the end of it all, it was sad that such a beautiful temple had become a battleground. Impressive structures were riddled with bullet marks. Some buildings were completely destroyed.

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in five months. The Army chief Gen Vaidya was assassinated in Pune in 1986 by Sikh gunmen six months after his retirement.

But the troubles weren't over. Infiltration of separatists continued. On May 1 and 2, 1986, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had to send in paramilitary troops to the temple to arrest separatists. But this time, there was no media blackout and it was far less controversial.

It has been peace since then. How the cycle of violence in Punjab was put down is a different story altogether.

You may also like to read

• Emergency, 30 years ago

• K R Narayanan -- India's scholar President

No degree is better than having one

The controversy over the educational qualification of Union HRD minister Smriti Irani is quite needless. Apparently she hasn't studied beyond Std XII. My take is -- it's good.

It all started with tweets from Madhu Kishwar and Congress spokesman Ajay Makhen, questioning her competence to head the education ministry. And, it backfired, with a barrage of countertweets. Columnist Swapan Dasgupta said: “Someone remind me. Did Rabindranath Tagore go to university? He certainly established one & had enlightened views on education.’’ Jammu and Kashmir CM Omar Abdullah tweeted: "To say that someone needs to be educated to be HRD Min is like saying one needs to be a pilot for Civil Aviation or a miner for Coal Min".

I wonder when did educational qualification become an imperative to join politics or to become a minister. Not just in politics, elsewhere too everyone is looking beyond degrees. We have infinite examples of under-qualified people doing well, and well-qualified people under-performing.

Let her do her job

As a minister, Smriti and others are more of managers and leaders. What she needs is a good set of advisers. And she should have the will to push the policies that are good for the teachers and the taught, and generally for the educational setup of our country. And for all that, a PhD or an MSc or an MBA is hardly required. In fact, a highly qualified person may prove to be a disadvantage, since he or she won't be able to look beyond his or her field of specialization. Such people very often have a constricted view, while a minister of education of the country should have a very broad view.

Let Smriti be allowed to do her job. If she has come this far, she must be smart enough to figure her way ahead too. If we need to criticize, let us do that for her omissions and commissions as a minister.

(Picture credit: The Hindu)

Judge not Modi too soon

Narendra Modi being sworn in as PM by President Pranab
Mukherjee. (Photo credit: Rajeev Bhatt/The Hindu) 

Narendra Modi has just been sworn in as the Prime Minister of India in a grand ceremony in the forecourt of the Rashtrapati Bhavan. For the first time ever, leaders from all the seven Saarc (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) nations and Mauritius, besides 4,000 other invitees attended.

It should normally have been just another transition of power -- for the 15th time, if you didn't include two stints of 13 days each when Gulzarilal Nanda was the acting prime minister after the demise of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964 and Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966. But there has been so much of excitement this time around.

In the recent past, perhaps only two other transitions created so much excitement -- in 1977 when Morarji Desai became PM heading India's first non-Congress government that too after both Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi were defeated in the election; and later in 1996 when Atal Behari Vajpayee led a BJP-led minority government, for 16 days, just 4 years after the demolition of Babri Masjid.

Given the way the UPA-2 government was drifting rudderless courting one controversy after another -- under a competent man, who unfortunately never got to do what he wanted to (unlike in 1991 when he was the finance minister, Narasimha Rao was the PM and Sonia Gandhi hadn't entered politics) -- Narendra Modi becoming the PM was very much foreseen.

Why the excitement?

• The hope that we will have a government that will be also seen to be functioning.

• After 16 years, we have a prime minister who has campaigned and led his party to victory.

• After 30 years, a single party has got majority in the Lok Sabha.

• Regional satraps who have only a score or two MPs won't hold the entire nation to ransom.

• The talk that Modi is an efficient and tough taskmaster who gets things done.

• We have a PM who is backed by a reasonable set of achievements, though he has quite a lot of negative attributes as well. But in the absence of any alternative, many seem to have decided to focus on his pluses than minuses.

While the excitement is understandable. we are too presumptuous in judging Modi. I guess, we must allow him and his government to settle down. We have seen only a number of symbolisms, during electioneering and after, from Modi. Nothing wrong. After all, politics is a lot about perception -- formed not just by tangible substantive actions, but by intangible tokenism too. The most talked-about symbolism is the invitation of foreign leaders to the swearing-in, particularly Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

I am sure Modi wouldn't restrict himself to token gestures, as he and his team gets the wheels of effective governance turning again. Expect not just sweet symbolisms, but quite a few harsh and unpopular decisions as well that are needed if our country has to scale heights of economic and social excellence. Hopefully, sloth, lack of accountability and indiscipline in governance will be things of the past.

Eager anticipation

It's more anticipation than excitement; anticipation on how the future would be. Going by the way votes have gone, it has been established on multiple fora that people who voted for the BJP had chosen to look at economic issues over communal and religious issues.

One important area that has suffered over the past few years is investment. We are not talking about the more controversial foreign direct investment, that too in retail. We are talking of investment in infrastructure, education, science and technology, agriculture, industry, tourism etc. And we are not talking of foreign investment. We are talking of Indian investment. Many Indians, wary of investing in India itself, have been turning to foreign countries.

The biggest change most Indians are looking forward to is this. Because, it will have a great bearing on jobs, state of the economy, and by extrapolation, the standard of living.

But the huge flip side of the mandate is that very other Indian who voted, didn't vote for BJP. Its vote share was a little over 30%. The majority of those voted, the nearly two-thirds, will be keeping their fingers crossed with a lot skepticism.

Hopefully Modi will keep them in mind, the huge majority who didn't vote for the BJP. Finally, his image and success, will depend on how he takes care of them.

Test of crisis

It's said the strength of a chain is its weakest link. It means, when pressure is applied on the chain, it's weakest link that will snap first. So, how long lasting the chain is depends on that weakest link. Similarly, how good Modi is will depend on how well he can handle a crisis. It's during a crisis one's abilities are put to test. So, we will be able to judge best, when he is faced with a crisis, by looking at how well he resolves it.

Congress 44 seats out of 543. What next for Sonia?

As poll surveys and exits polls dominated television, and everyone seemed to be pretty convinced that Narendra Modi would be the next prime minister, I wondered if there would be any surprises yesterday, the day votes were counted. Exits polls on most previous occasions, overestimated the winner. So the fear was if NDA would end up just around 272, allowing smaller regional parties to have a field day. Anticipating that, BJP started even looking for more allies a couple of days before counting.

But I was proved wrong and there were plenty of surprises yesterday. The biggest of them all was the the sweep of the Modi storm. Though Modi would have dreamt of this, and worked strenuously for the result, I am sure he himself was taken by surprise. So too millions of voters, who voted for BJP but just kept their fingers crossed. My random guess is that many people who don't basically agree with BJP ideology (including Muslims) would have have voted for BJP. Why they voted for the BJP could be the subject of a debate.

The other big surprise was the depth to which Congress plummeted yesterday, which didn't get highlighted so much, thanks to the blinding effect of the BJP gust.

Congress managed to win just 44 seats in a House of 543. Simply can't believe this.

Their worst performance was in 1999, when Vajpayee-led NDA restricted them to a mere 114. In fact, that itself was worse than the 1977 tally of 153, when a hurriedly cobbled together combination of Janata Alliance dealt a body blow to Indira Gandhi-led Congress -- a punishment for the severe excesses during the Emergency: a particularly black chapter in India's independent history. Then, both Indira and her son Sanjay lost the election. At least the family members have won this time. Some consolation for Congress.

Yesterday, as one saw Sonia and Rahul come out to meet the media, and valiantly put up a smile and graciously accept the result in all humility, it was difficult to suppress a surge of sympathy for the plight they find themselves in. To be fair to Congress, their government did launch a number of social initiatives aimed at helping the disadvantaged, besides a slew of economic policies to benefit the youth and career-minded burgeoning young middle class. But the barrage of negative tidings for the top leaders of the party was so strong, Congress had time only to keep themselves afloat rather than counter the BJP. No one understood or took notice of the few good things the government did.

The Sonia family will have to seriously introspect why such a fate befell their party. Congress is just riding on the family tag. That will have to definitely change. Congress doesn't have a leader. Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka are always in the background. They need a strong leader: both Sonia and Manmohan were weak. Rahul just made sporadic appearances. Priyanka came in too late to make any impact.

Rahul was simply no match for Narendra Modi.

Also, the Congress experiment of two heads -- one for the party and the other for the government -- has failed. It was made worse with the two leaders who could make no impact.

Congress needs to project as their leader, someone who has strong grassroots presence and is a leader in his or her own right. Neither Sonia, nor Rahul, nor Priyanka can take that position. The family's first task will be to identify that person, and groom him.

The family also needs to consider if loosening their grip on the party, would help in any way. It would be a tough call to take.

But things are so bad for the Congress, any decision to revive the party would be better than no decision at all.

A political rally with a difference

Political party rallies aren't very different from one another, barring the party that organizes them. There are huge crowds; and an implicit assumption is that they have been hired, brought by the volunteers from neighbourhood villages and towns for a price. Speakers portray themselves as saviours of the poor and downtrodden while tearing into their opponents. Speeches dissolve into bland political rhetoric, notwithstanding the speakers' high vocal pitch and oratorical theatrics; finally everything sounding like pots calling the kettles black.

Today, I went for the Aam Aadmi Party's public meeting at Freedom Park, Bangalore. It was a political rally with a number of differences.

I reached the venue at 3 pm. There was a fairly a good crowd. At a booth near the entrance, one could pick up the AAP caps. They were for free, but the organizers expected a contribution -- of any amount -- towards the party. One could also register as a volunteer or even formally join the party. I made my way towards the podium, through the crowd, with some difficulty. I noticed that there was a barricade separating the audience -- women who had come alone or along with men, and senior citizens on one side; and men on the other side.

The composition of the crowd stood out. They were definitely not brought to the town from neighbourhood villages. No one paid them. But on the contrary, the members of the audience had offered whatever they could to the party's kitty. The audience comprised middle class and upper middle class people in the 25 to 40 age group. But there was a significant number of elderly people as well. Definitely not the ones who would normally go to such rallies, they were the new breed political followers who were evidently attracted by the pitch of the greenhorn party.

The huge crowd of young middle class and upper middle class people who had come to the AAP rally in Bangalore 

The atmosphere was festive. It made me feel as if I was at some college reunion or some youth festival. On the stage were youngsters with musical instruments like drums, keyboard and violin, playing well-known patriotic songs and a few ones composed by the party's lyricists mocking the current political culture. The rhythmic numbers and the young lady moderator's exhortations steadily electrified the atmosphere, with the crowd continually breaking into handclap and loud cheers. There was also a performance of "broom dance": a few young men and women doing an amateurish jig with brooms in their hands, and a song resonating with AAP theme playing in the background.

The podium wasn't covered. Obviously, since the party doesn't have the money to get an ornamental pandal and decorations. Everyone was sitting in hot (by Bangalore standards) sun.

At 4.10 pm, Arvind Kejriwal arrived to a thunderous applause and cheers of the crowd that had swollen to huge numbers by then. The AAP candidates were introduced to the crowd and there were speeches by a number of people, including a 96-year old person, Doraiswamy, if I remember the name right. He spoke so vociferously and passionately on the state of the nation lamenting the lack of progress even after decades of independence from the British. A former career diplomat, who resigned after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, too spoke, singing paeans to Kejriwal's dream of a new India.

Around 4.45 pm Kejriwal began speaking. It was the usual tirade against Congress, BJP, Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi and many others of both the national parties, besides Mukesh Ambani. Most of the attack was targeted against Modi, since he is tipped to the next prime minister going by multiple opinion polls. He read out names of many politicians of the BJP and the Congress who were allegedly involved in corrupt deals. He kept asking why Modi had to have people involved in dubious backgrounds in his ministry or in the party.

Arvind Kejriwal addressing AAP's Bangalore rally

He said he would consider himself fortunate if he had to lay down his life for the country. Mocking Modi for looking for a safe seat, he said if the party decides, he would contest against Modi in Varanasi. The speech went on for close to an hour. There were constant cheers on the lines of "Kejriwal, we are with you!".

This was definitely a political rally with a difference; at least for the following reasons:

• The type of crowd, comprising young, educated middle class and upper middle class people. 
• The lack of any decorations at the venue. There was no shade or even chairs on the the podium.
• The festive atmosphere, with music, songs and dance.
• The determination of speakers to plough a new and different track in India's political discourse. 
• Speeches free of old rhetoric of freeing the country from poverty, a staple of usual political speeches; 
• Projection of common man's problems as the most pertinent political theme. 

AAP's ideals sound noble. They reflect the frustration and disappointments of common people. Kejriwal seems to be a good leader, is a good speaker and knows how to steer political agendas. He has positioned himself as a politician with a difference; and AAP as a political party with a difference.

But the challenges before Kejriwal and AAP are huge. Because they are not fighting an issue or two. They are taking on an entire system which has run the country all these years, and to which we all have got used to.

Not many realise that this is a challenge not just for Kejriwal and AAP but for all the common people too, since they all will have to get used to a new system crafted by Kejriwal and AAP. Fired-up party leaders may be ready for the required sacrifice, but are the common people ready for that sacrifice?

Only time will tell, but surely, a beginning has been made -- a beginning that will, for sure, have a bearing on the results of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

Educate legislators, not voters

The general election to constitute the 16th Lok Sabha is less than 100 days way. The excitement will steadily increase in the coming days with the announcement of candidates, party manifestos and nation-wide campaigning by political bigwigs, besides of course the stepped up coverage in the media. Simultaneously, we will also see efforts by, mainly non-profit social organizations, to enroll new voters and exhort them to cast their ballots on the voting day.

Voting is our right. We are told that it's also our responsibility, that if we don't go and vote, we will only allow the present morass to continue. An implicit assumption here is that if we vote, we can usher in a new society that is fair, just and devoid of the most ubiquitous vice of corruption.

Indeed elections form the bedrock of a democracy. We must be proud that our country is one of the few nations in the world where the citizens enjoy this freedom to vote in and vote out rulers.

Whenever I could vote, I have voted. And I value that right and freedom greatly.

But I don't understand how the number of people who vote can determine the quality of governance? And, how voters, by turning out in huge numbers, can ensure a better government.

We have corruption and poor standard of living not because all eligible voters don't vote; it's because, the people who are voted to power (be it by 30, 60 or 90% of the electorate) do not work sincerely for the welfare of the society. For the lawmakers, comfort of ordinary citizens figures very low in their priority list.

The media have covered extensively how our legislators fall short of expectation, and how a lot of precious time is lost in our legislatures. There is more of disruption than any constructive engagement.

We in India have the freedom to vote. Even without any effort, India's voters have been coming out in good numbers to cast their franchise. India's voting percentage of around 60% is not bad at all. It's comparable to the turnout in the UK and in the US. It's extremely difficult to draw a correct correlation between the turnout percentage and quality of governance or the standard of living of a society.

During the past 10 to 15 years, we have seen a lot of efforts by social organizations to get youngsters to register for voting and educate them to take part in the democratic exercise. But the fact is that in spite of all that, during the assembly election last year, Bangalore recorded the lowest turnout. There is a lot of cynicism. Some people are indifferent, but many are disenchanted. Part of the blame lies in the failure of the political class to inspire voters. I have heard so many times, remarks like: "If these are the type of politicians we have, then why should I vote?"

What has been happening Parliament during the last few days over Telangana, and yesterday's incident in the UP assembly are the more recent cases.

There is definitely nothing wrong in campaigning to educate voters. It should continue. Citizens, especially, youngsters must be made aware of the precious democratic right we are privileged to exercise on one single day once every five years.

But that merely won't do, and won't achieve anything substantial. A high voter turnout is a high voter turnout, one one particular day. That's it. What matters to any society is what happens during the next five years. So, a much more intense effort must be undertaken to educate lawmakers and other politicians on their responsibilities and how to serve the people, during the five years of their tenure. The exercise of voting will have any real meaning only if the elected representatives honour the votes cast in their name and serve the society.

Economic challenges will be Kejriwal's acid test

A lot of us have been for years saying that India will not change unless we change the way we do politics. A few attempts have been made in the past to bring about that change.

In mid-70s, when many thought that Indira Gandhi was getting dictatorial and corrupt, Janata Party was cobbled together. In an unbelievable electoral wave, she and her Congress were swept out of power in 1977. She herself lost her seat to someone called Raj Narain.

The Janata Party experiment was largely reactionary: it set up Shah Commission and hounded Indira Gandhi. Their undoing was they practised the same politics as Congress. Morarji Desai as PM couldn't keep the disparate power centres together. The same Congress, the same Indira Gandhi, came back to power in three years.

Her son, Rajiv Gandhi, gave us lot of hope. He tried cleaning up the system, and called upon bureaucrats and technocrats to come to public life. Even now there are many talented people, young and old, in the Congress. But none of them are able to break out of the party’s culture; and instead of reforming the system, they have virtually merged with the system. The BJP, positioned itself as an alternative with a different approach, but in many ways, they are no different from the Congress.

For the first time, a group of educated people, not belonging to any established political parties, but sworn to public service, took corruption as a major issue, and decided to clean up the system by getting into the system. (Of course, AAP was helped to great extent by Anna Hazare's Lokpal campaign.) That’s the reason why the AAP victory in Delhi assembly elections and today’s formation of new AAP-headed Delhi government is historic.

So far the AAP story has been a heady mixture of populism and idealism. Nothing wrong with that. But now they will have to find space for hard reality too. The AAP movement grew on India's anger against corruption. But corruption is a part of India’s socio-economic culture. Changing the way we do politics will now have to extend to changing that culture.

For example, we have been brought up on freebies and subsidies. A lot of these, which should actually go to the poor, go to people who don't need it, the upper middle class and rich. Our economy and development policies are in a shambles; and that’s one reason why our infrastructure and standard of living are way poorer than what they should actually be. Political changes are easier compared to economic changes. And therein lies Kejriwal’s acid test.

AAP and Kejriwal have a real battle ahead. But as of now, they are the best bet we have. They are not only talking idealism, but also making every effort to practise it

(Crossposted from Kaleidoscope)

AAP has bigger challenges ahead

The AAP is on a roll. But as Arvind Kejriwal would know very well, the path ahead will be harder from now on. This is a track he chose consciously: to fight the system by joining it, and not as his mentor Anna Hazare prefers, to be outside the system. So far so good.

Politicians may not admit, but surely the Aam Aadmi Party’s performance has made them sit up. If it were any party other than the AAP in Delhi, we would have seen power-brokers jumping into the fray, leading to the all-too-familiar scenario of wheeling and dealing, and before long we would have had a government.

There may be a few reasons why the BJP is not staking claim to power. One, with the AAP-inspired vigil, it's difficult to woo allies to cobble the requisite number. Two, President's Rule will lead to a re-election in Delhi, probably along with the Lok Sabha election. BJP might well be hoping that the Modi wave will give it a greater momentum for a decisive mandate.

Kejriwal's hope is that the AAP will be able to repeat the performance at the national level. But the extrapolation may not be so easy as it sounds. The citizen-driven party will have to mobilize state and district-level participation in big numbers to counter the well-entrenched local influences of the established parties, not just the Congress and the BJP, but also the many regional parties. It may not be beyond Kejriwal and his highly motivated team. Their theme of 'clean politics' is one which has a pan-India resonance. If Kejriwal has his eyes on a big number in the Lok Sabha, then the work will have to start right away.

The Delhi election result is a milestone in India's story of democracy. The light at the end of the tunnel is now a shade brighter. Kejriwal and his team need to ensure that the light only burns brighter. Hopefully, we are seeing the beginning of a change. If the right people are elected, the right people will be in power, and there will surely be better governance.

Shutting petrol pumps and #MoilyIdeas

Petroleum minister Veerappa Moily's idea of shutting down petrol pumps at 8 pm in order to save fuel consumption, shows how befuddled the central political and administrative machinery in the country is, on improving the economy. (The original story in Indian Express & in Epaper). It's difficult to even understand the logic behind this bizarre thought.

Very few petrol pumps are open late in the night, and fewer open round the clock. Most petrol pumps anyway shut by 10 pm. Never heard of people filling up petrol and going on long drives in the night just because they saw fuel stations are open after 8 pm. Wonder how much Moily thought the oil companies would save by closing these pumps 2 hours early.

If at all such a restriction comes into place, one, people will fill more petrol in the hours when the pumps are open. Two, people who need fuel on emergency will be put to great hardship. Three, a remote possibility of vested interests hoarding petrol and selling it near stations illegally at a higher price for people who are caught unawares and need fuel urgently after 8 pm.

Moily's remark has led to a flood of comments on Twitter with the hash tag #Moilyideas. It was trending for a while yesterday. But the tweets are still pouring in here.

Here are some of them:

Nikhil Narayanan ‏@nikhilnarayanan
"Boss, I need to leave by 7 today. Gotta fill fuel" ~ Possible office-talk, thanks to #moilyideas 

Mocking Bard ‏@Spooferman_ 
People are getting fat. Please shut down restaurants between 8am and 8pm.

IndiaFirst ‏@NiketNabriya1
Government bans sex from 8pm to 8am to conrol population explosion! 

Faking News ‏@fakingnews
BREAKING: ATMs to close down by 8 PM to arrest the slide of rupee

Gaurav Sabnis ‏@gauravsabnis
After 8 pm, women traveling alone in cars should walk on the streets instead.

Now Moily says the idea to shut down pumps came from the public and not from the government.

Everyone, including people in government, know that there's not control on fuel consumption for government vehicles. The common logic is that since it comes free, why bother. That attitude has to change, because that's where the maximum wastage occurs.

Secondly, limit free trips and travel allowances for government functionaries.

Thirdly, remove the subsidy for diesel. Or if that could add to inflation, then have differential pricing mechanism for it.

I am sure people are willing to take the hard measures, provided they see that the government itself is setting an example.

Elections will end political uncertainty

Rupee for now seems to have stabilized after the precipitous fall. The fears that it may not fall further haven't eased. The GDP figures paint a depressing story. 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh -- irrespective of his eminence as an economist and a crafty politician who has survived many a storm in the portals of power -- ironically is the weakest link in the economic chain. 

He gave a statement in Parliament. But it came too late and didn't offer any solutions. He merely said get ready for hard days. But he should have announced some measures that would have infused confidence in people. I don't think a few steps now will be able repair the economy damaged over many years.

The biggest problem now is the seeming lack of control authority in Delhi. Foreign investors have pulled out money precisely because of the evaporation of confidence in our country. 

Dissolving Parliament and calling for elections will bring to an early end the policy drift. But Congress will not do it but will hang on for as long as possible and try their best to salvage the situation.

Bangalore's voter apathy

(Crossposted from Kaleidoscope)

Many feared that the voter turnout in Bangalore city had plummeted to a new low yesterday. But the figures put out by the Election Commission paint a different picture. A little more than half the city voted, 52.8 percent, five percent more than the 2008 turnout. But Bangalore Urban continued to record the lowest turnout among the 30 districts in the state.

I don't find anything surprising in many city dwellers shying away from exercising their franchise. There are many reasons why voting isn't a priority for them. 
One is the general cynicism about politicians and the system they operate in. Many people don't believe that merely voting will bring about any change in the society. They argue that the changes they are desperately looking for are apolitical development-related ones, like infrastructure; and accountability of public servants. These are in no way related to political ideologies; and many feel politicians have collectively failed to do the least that is expected of them.

There’s no choice either. Most candidates fall far short of minimum expectations. Politicians hardly inspire. There are so many cases of lawmakers turning into lawbreakers. There are honest, educated politicians with good credentials who are committed to bringing about quality changes in society. 

But they are a very small minority. Besides, we have many examples of such well-meaning public servants being beaten back by the system.

All parties finally turn out the same. No party has acted in a way that inspires when it comes to, for example, corruption allegations against one of its men.

There are also many reasons why village and small-town residents are less cynical. One, there is lesser disconnect between them and politicians. Two, their expectations are fewer. Three, when it comes to voting, the "herd mentality" works to some extent in small towns and not in cosmopolitan areas like Bangalore where people are individualistic in their thoughts and actions.

Having said all these, did I vote yesterday? Yes, I did. Was the choice easy? No, not at all. But the process was.

I thought if most politicians shun their part of the work, should I shun mine too? Voting is the easiest part in the democratic setup. I didn’t want to fare poorer than most politicians.